CS Lewis Abolition of Man vs. Nietzsche

“Following a discussion on another thread:
http://www.thebackpacker.com/trailtalk/thread/23202.php

Here is where we left off:

“Gee HPD. If you read my post, you will see I said the same thing for CS Lewis as for Nietzsche. We all know what both had views on god, faith, science and doubt that would make for great fuego. I wasn't being critical of your post, nor of mine.

It's as if you are trying really hard to prove a point to someone.”
pedxing
10:26:22 AM

“Bullcrap. You had NO reason to point out my post. That book is not about god and faith, etc.., it was DIRECTLY related to the topic at hand. Just shows you didn't read it. It's a book of 3 discussions directed at school teachers. You have a HISTORY of criticizing my posts and not others, and this is just one more to the list.”
HiGHPLAiNSDRiFTER
10:28:19 AM
1/20/11


Knowing you follow the golden rule, I gather you are comfortable with people calling your posts Bullcrap, asserting you are talking about books and things you don't understand and criticizing your patterns of posting and responding to others. I will keep that in mind in responding to you in the future.

Personally I love Nietzsche and CS Lewis - both had great insights. Both were polar opposites on issues of religion and faith. Nietzsche is famous for his "God is dead" rant.

As for Lewis and the book you cited and claimed was in no way fuego. Abolition of man is a warning about the consequences of an educational system which does not uphold the objectivity of a morality absolutes. He argues that failure to teach moral absolutes and an analysis of morality as a human or evolutionary creation subject to issues of power, individual need will lead to a humanity which is inhuman.

Religion and politics are worthwhile topics. To say something touches on them is not an insult. But to believe that essays which argue that morality is an objective thing with an existence outside of human social and psychological processes and that moral relativism in education will be the ruination of humanity is clearly something that moves into those realms.

And, Lewis's theism - I think his Christianity - underlies his point of view there.

Lewis and Nietzsche are both worthy topics, but they do take us into fuego issues.”

“Go get`em, Tiger!”

“Fuego = deeper cat holes that won't clog an onstepping Vibram*”

“Knowing you follow the golden rule, I gather you are comfortable with people calling your posts Bullcrap

Again - bullcrap. My post was in RESPONSE to you calling out my post as fuego/off-topic. Don't begin to act like I am initiating a mud-slinging contest. You did.

You are to blame - and YOU are a moderator - and YOU singled ME out to call out on that thread. It's irrelevant that you tagged your earlier FUEGO reference on as an aside to your CALLING ME OUT, as has been history for you.

There was NOTHING wrong with my post in that discussion. It broke NO rules. AND, it was one of the most on-topic posts on that thread.

You should have reclassified that thread at that time if you had such a problem with it instead of POINTING FINGERS.”

“There are people who brake the rules on here every hour and I hear NOTHING from you about them - but you are in the habit of calling me out for things that brake no rules simply because you seem to have a grudge against me. You are the problem here, not me pedxing.”

“While you're at it you need to get rid of these people coming back with different names after being banned.

And before anybody says it - Elise did not ban me, she told me that I had to use a different username but was allowed to post because "Sarge" was supposedly too controversial to be spoken here - so to all of you who keep saying that was banned and came on with a different name because of that - you are wrong.”

“Can you fit that rocket, you're building, in a 40 liter pack or do you just use ducttape to strap it to your back?”

“HPD - I was not out to criticize you in the least. Obviously there is no point in my adding anything to this discussion.

Thank you for a highly informative exchange.”

“Why did you point out MY post?

Why? Explain that. What was the significance of my post that you had to mention it?
last edited: 1/20/11 9:55:21 AM”

“If we go much beyond the title of "The Abolition of Man" - we definitely will get into fuego territory,

Explain why you had to call out my post as fuego.

Explain why you felt it necessary to single me out again.
last edited: 1/20/11 9:53:33 AM”

“Where you being positive? Where you somehow saying something nice about my post?

No, you were criticizing that post. Period.”

“You were making a statement that I, personally, turned that discussion toward fuego.

Which in fact is bullcrap.”

“Four in a row, where else will this go?”

“"God is Dead" - Nietzsche

"Nietzsche is Dead" - God”

“HPD, It looks to me like Ped was replying to Que's post...

Let's keep the obvious fugeo in the fugeo category ped.


Thanks.�
Que

and his reply actually referred to you as well as his own post...If we go much beyond the title of "The Abolition of Man" - we definitely will get into fuego territory, but we could do that going many steps into Nietzsche as well.�
pedxing

indicating that discussion on either subject would indeed turn the thread into feugo..i dont think he called you out...but simply stated that it was not a feugo thread but could easily get there with further discussion on EITHER subject..IMO”

“"The Abolition of Man" - we definitely will get into fuego territory

Again - nothing of my post was "more fuego" than any previous post. If anything, it brought it back to the topic. There was NO reason to call it out as being a problem post. I am still waiting to hear what was wrong with it.

The Abolition of Man is a book about the failing civilization and I only posted it to supplement HIS post, which was posted prior to mine.

Again, HE singled my post out even AFTER he let his own post go. He thought it was perfectly ok to post his post on the thread about FAILING CIVILIZATION, but reserved comment until I posted.

I want to know why it it was not to criticize. It certainly WAS criticizing my post.”

“Sunni basically nailed it. I was playfully responding to what Que said, which I took as playful in its intent. There was nothing wrong with the post you made with the title of the CS Lewis book, absolutely nothing.

If I had a point it was that fuego lurks in all kinds of places.”

“The fact of the matter is, pedxing, YOU were caught being the one instigating fuego in that thread, so you tried to redirect the blame to me.

Read the thread again.

YOU instigated the fuego.

Yet you redirected the blame to me as slighly as you could.

YOU are in the wrong.”

“YOU posted THIS before I replied to you with the book by Lewis:

“LOL! That's great.


As a nation we continue to head towards universal illiteracy, even as we suppose to aim at universal literacy.

It reminds me of a sentence by Nietzsche I read when I was in High School (maybe in Zarathustra?) that appalled me at the time as being totally and disgustingly elitist:

That nearly everyone can read, will be the ruin not only of reading and writing, but of thinking itself.

(I know I'm not remembering it exactly)
last edited: 1/19/11 11:51:29 PM”
pedxing
11:50:09 PM
1/19/11


THEN, you tried to direct blame to me with this --

I don't see how her tweet is obvious fuego.

If we go much beyond the title of "The Abolition of Man" - we definitely will get into fuego territory, but we could do that going many steps into Nietzsche as well.”
pedxing
12:35:32 AM
1/20/11


THERE was NO reason to mention my post other than to try to spread the blame around for what YOU did.”

“and as a MODERATOR, that is a big NO-NO


Especially one who has a history of calling me out by name even when you admit in private I did nothing wrong.”

“I can only say this one more time in as simple a way as possible:

No Blame! I was totally OK with Que and with what you posted. I'm publicly saying you did nothing wrong. I have no problem with it.

It is your constant pattern of seeing attack where there is none and massively counterattacking that is a problem.”

“I can only say this one more time in as simple a way as possible:

No Blame! I was totally OK with Que and with what you posted. I'm publicly saying you did nothing wrong. I have no problem with it.

It is your constant pattern of seeing attack where there is none and massively counterattacking that is a problem.”

“So, once again - What was the point of your post?”

“You were blaming me for turning the tide toward fuego. Tell me you weren't.”

“You did not turn the tide toward fuego.
You turned it to hostility and personal attack.”

“BULLCRAP AGAIN!

You called me out personally for SAYING EXACTLY THIS---

“The Abolition of Man, C.S. Lewis”
HiGHPLAiNSDRiFTER
12:22:11 AM
1/20/11



You are obfuscating once again. Why won't you answer the direct question as to why you mentioned my post if not to critize it? We all know why. You were redirecting blame for YOUR post.

Stop avoiding the question. YOU made the attack first with your comment to try to make it sound as if I personally turned the thread fuego.”

“Perhaps this would be a good time to revisit the whole concept of "retaliate at your own risk".”

“It's a discussion. You think that's retaliating??”

“I see personal attacks galore and real close to becoming "Trubritish".”

“Wow. You have an active imagination.”

“Stop with the personal attacks; it's not going to get the conversation anywhere.”